Designer dogs included Cockapoos, Labradoodles and Cavapoos are no healthier than purebreds, according to the world’s largest study into the issue.
In the past decade demand for crossbreed dogs has increased significantly, with many now surpassing the popularity of their parent breeds.
For example, last year there were more Cockapoo dogs owned in the UK than either Cocker Spaniel or Poodle.
Much of this meteoric public demand has been driven by a widespread belief that designer crossbreeds are a healthier option.
However, a new study has revealed that – specifically for Cockapoo, Labradoodle and Cavapoo – the risk for the 57 most common disorders did not differ between these three most common designer crossbreeds and their purebred parent breeds 86 per cent of the time.
Designer dogs included Cockapoos, Labradoodles and Cavapoos are no healthier than purebreds, according to the world’s largest study into the issue. Pictured: footballer Declan Rice and his cavapoo, Raffa
In the past decade demand for crossbreed dogs has increased significantly, with many now surpassing the popularity of their parent breeds. Pictured: Sylvester Stallone and his Cavapoo, Billie
The research, carried out by the Royal Veterinary College in London, involved a survey of more than 9,400 UK dog owners.
They found the risk of vomiting and diarrhoea was higher in all three designer crossbreeds compared to their shared parent breed, the Poodle.
All three designer crossbreeds also had a higher chance of ear infections than their non-Poodle parent breeds.
And ironically Cockapoos – a firm favourite for families with pet allergies – had a higher likelihood of itchy skin than their parent breeds, a disorder often caused by allergies.
Much of this meteoric public demand has been driven by a widespread belief that designer crossbreeds are a healthier option. Pictured: Jamie Lee Curtis and her labradoodle
When considering purchasing a dog, the researchers encourage owners to instead consider other factors such as expected health issues, suitability of the breed’s size, behavioural and husbandry needs for their lifestyle, and likely temperament to decide upon their chosen breed. Pictured: Kelly Brook and her beloved cavapoo, Teddy
Overall, the findings show that the risk did not differ at all for the majority of disorders between the designer crossbreds and their parent breeds, the researchers said.
The findings also largely debunk beliefs held by some people that designer crossbreeds are somehow damaged or defective by not having the ‘pure’ blood of purebred dogs and must therefore be less healthy than the parent purebred breeds.
Based on these results, when considering purchasing a dog, the researchers encourage owners to instead consider other factors such as expected health issues, suitability of the breed’s size, behavioural and husbandry needs for their lifestyle, and likely temperament to decide upon their chosen breed.
Dr Rowena Packer, senior author of the paper, said:’The popularity of designer crossbreeds, particularly Poodle crosses, has boomed over the past decade in the UK.
‘With cute teddy bear-like features, their aesthetic appeal to many households is clear.
‘However, our previous research discovered that many are purchased based on assumed characteristics that are not well-evidenced, such as perceptions they are hypoallergenic, good with children, and have good health.
‘This study has demonstrated that although the health of designer Poodle-crosses is no worse than their parent breeds’, it is also no better.
‘This means that owners should still be strongly focused on purchasing from breeders who prioritise health and temperament over looks in their breeding decisions, and not to assume their puppy will automatically be healthy due to being a crossbreed.
‘Prospective owners should be extremely mindful that the popularity of Poodle-crosses means they are at high-risk of coming from poor welfare sources such as puppy farms and illegal imports to meet this demand, which could negatively influence their future health and welfare.’
The findings were published in the journal Plos One.
